Member Info for Looed

Lifeishard - no offence taken at all. It is down to due process now and what happens with matters related to Cayman. I will continue to do my best to explain processes as I know they can be bewildering to some, as well as share any news I find, good or bad, via verifiable 3rd parties.

Keyser / WHamBoy - I just want to clarify this one final time. Like most people, I initially assumed that the strike-off (S/O) lists covered all cases. However, after taking a closer look at the details this morning, I realized that these lists only apply to specific types of S/O’s, not all of them. I then shared a detailed post explaining this, citing the relevant sections of Cayman law as stated in the Gazette.

I’m not sure how that translates to being “hopeless.” If anything, I think it’s useful for people to consider reviewing the Gazette in full rather than focusing only on the S/O lists at the end (if that’s what’s been happening). The relevant legal clauses are easy to check online—something I should have done sooner.

I was simply clarifying that the struck-off lists pertain to administrative strike-offs rather than a court-ordered process, so it's important to look at the Gazette as a whole rather than focusing solely on those lists.

Keyser – I think news of any kind will probably come via 3rd parties with the Gazette and the Deloitte website being the most obvious places to keep an eye on.

A bit more detail on the struck off lists. You can access the latest Gazette here –

https://www.gov.ky/publication-detail/2025-gazette-4

There are two main types of strike-off lists in the Gazette: one listing companies that have already been struck off and another listing companies that are proposed to be struck off.

List 1, found on page 350 of the latest Gazette, states “…that the under-mentioned companies are no longer carrying on business or are not in compliance with Section 170 and have been struck off the Register as of 31 January 2025, in accordance with the provisions of Section 156 of the Companies Act.”

Here, Sec. 170 relates to companies that have failed to maintain a registered office or submit required regulatory filings, while Section 156 grants the Registrar the authority to administratively strike off companies, a process which is separate from liquidation.

List 2, on page 360, states “…are no longer carrying on business or are not in compliance with Sections 168 and 169, and are intended to be struck off the Register as of 31 March 2025, in accordance with Section 156 of the Companies Act.”

In this list, Sec’s. 168 and 169 require companies to maintain proper documentation, file necessary returns, and inform the Registrar of any changes etc. As in List 1, Sec. 156 gives the Registrar the power to administratively strike off companies.

As Frontera is not subject to these administrative processes I think any developments will more likely appear in other sections of the Gazette

Struck-off lists = Administrative issues

Other parts of the Gazette = Legal notices

Thanks Ziggy.

It is my understanding that the 'struck-off' lists refer to entities that have either already been struck off or are proposed for removal due to administrative issues, such as failure to pay registry fees or update necessary documentation. The '31st March' list includes companies that have been warned to correct their records or face removal due to non-compliance, not those facing removal due to court-related matters.

As Frontera is under court-ordered dissolution, it would not typically appear on these lists. Any developments would likely be published in a separate section of the Gazette, such as Legal or Liquidation Notices.

I believe Ziggy found a similar example in the past when FRC appeared on the 'to be struck-off' list due to an admin issue, which was rectified before the proposed date.

Therefore, when folks check the Gazette, it's best to review all sections of the publication, not just the struck-off lists.

Hi Monti - My comment about the tender process was simply a response to Keyser, who referenced a timeline in regard to the subject, acknowledging that it remains in limbo with no clear indication of when it might resume. Thats it.

Keyser – I assume you started this thread because you saw the Georgian PM’s recent comments as a positive shift in tone from the government and possibly something that could impact the tender process. However, I only wanted to point out that the comments were far from positive; in fact, they reinforced a familiar narrative that has been repeatedly rejected by the U.S.—as reflected once again in the latest statement I shared earlier.

Separately, the tender process remains temporarily suspended, and we are still awaiting updates on if or when it might resume.

The U.S. Embassy operates under the State Department and reflects the official position of the U.S. government, as set by the Secretary of State and senior policymakers. The current Secretary of State is Marco Rubio. In that regard, the embassy speaks for him.

The response from Machavariani is just a rehash of the statements the USA has already soundly rejected.

Mamuka Mdinaradze, the Georgian Dream Executive Secretary, repeated elements of the PM's "roadmap" today and the US has issued a swift response - "Mr. Mdinaradze’s statements today are categorically false and demonstrate a lack of understanding of what the United States Embassy does to support President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio’s top priorities of making America safer, stronger and more prosperous." https://ge.usembassy.gov/statement-from-the-u-s-embassy/

Keyser - Thanks for sharing the articles. Despite the positive soundbites, the PM’s actual comments (in the 2nd article) come across as increasingly confrontational and potentially even insulting to the U.S. Hopefully, this is just bravado for his local audience, as he has been repeating these statements for months now.

WHamBoy - Ziggy is correct and you can see the quarterly dates here https://www.ciregistry.ky/wp-content/uploads/Strike-Dates-Notice-2025.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The bids are, or were due to be, closed and then opened on 27th Jan, after which the decision making process kicks in to decide the winning bid (if any).

The tender I referenced that experienced a delay was under the GOGC.

Keyser - This is the decision-making process once the bids are opened:-

- Within five days of bid opening, the working group submits a report to the Head of the Agency, including conclusions on the presented bids.

- The Head of the Agency then forwards the bids to the tender commission.

- Based on the commission’s conclusions, the Head of the Agency identifies the preferred bidder.

- A decision on all bids must be made no later than five days after the commission’s final meeting.

- Within three days of the decision, the Agency must inform all bidders in writing.

As you can see, some timelines are given, some are not.

It is incorrect to claim that there have been no delays in other tenders—an example being the Gardabani Thermal Power Plant (TPP) 3 Project.

Montiburns - In your last post, you mentioned "this news that other blocks have been awarded in the same tender process," which I understood to mean you saying that all tenders were processed simultaneously, but the decision on B12 was withheld.

However, the announcement regarding the other blocks is separate from the process for B12. For those blocks, the tender was announced in August 2024, bids were opened in November 2024, and the winning companies were confirmed as per the article kindly shared by cyrmo1864.

The tender for B12, on the other hand, began in October 2024, with bids originally scheduled to be opened on January 27th. So, it has followed a different timeline from the other blocks—if that is indeed what you were implying.

Mapp - my post of 27/11/24 told you how to find RR. So no reason to mention it again.

Chris572 - State agency.

Keyser - The tender process is temporarily on hold to address a procedural matter, it is not currently cancelled outright. While timelines are not disclosed, an announcement is expected to be made on the outcome in due course.

Should read "one or more of the arguments..."

Ziggy is correct - the listing under "Table of Authorities" means the attorneys have used an element from that particular case to support one more of the arguments they are making in their own case. There is no connection outside of that reference point.